That is more or less what I was guessing, thanks for these precision.
2013/4/26 Sylvain Lebresne <sylv...@datastax.com> > This is indeed intended. That behavior is largely dictated by how the > storage engine works, and the fact that an update does no read internally > in particular. > > Yet, what I do not know is whether this behavior can be changed somehow to >> let the initial TTL, >> > > There's nothing like that supported, no. You have to read the value first > to get his TTL and then insert whatever update you want with the TTL you've > just fetch. And since we don't have a good way to do it much more > efficiently than server side, we prefer not doing it. That way the > performance impact is very explicit. > > -- > Sylvain > > > >> >> Alain >> >> >> 2013/4/26 Shahryar Sedghi <shsed...@gmail.com> >> >>> Apparently when I update a column using CQL that already has a TTL, it >>> resets the TTL to null, so if there was already a TTL for all columns that >>> I inserted part of a composite column set, this specific column that I >>> updated will not expire while the others are are getting expired. Is it how >>> it is expected to work or it is a bug? >>> >>> Thanks in advance >>> >>> Shahryar >>> >>> >>> >> >
